Don't get prickly over criticism that Democrats are getting now, it's the result of a lot of legitimate frustration.

[lees1975]

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2025/04/with-democrats-theres-lot-of.html

Some of the same polling data that those opposed to Trump are celebrating, watching his job approval rating fall to levels below where it was during his first failed term, is showing the Democratic party members in Congress getting a 29% job approval rating, with only 7% "strongly approving" of the job they are doing. That kind of puts a damper on a celebration, huh?

Well, what did you expect?

It's hard to put a finger on just exactly where it was that things turned south, but if I were a professional polling analyst, and I was interested in truth, not just projecting a political image, I'd be looking into what transpired around the time of Biden's first debate with Trump, and the fallout that happened afterward. The image that Democrats have built for themselves has never really been sharp, clear and focused, but that was a disaster of epic proportions. We looked like the GOP for about six weeks, with shadowed influence built around money interests calling the shots and trying to run the show.

That's when I realized that the hope we had placed in the fact that mountains of evidence had been produced and that Trump had finally and actually been indicted for his massive crimes would wind up coming to nothing. I realized, when the Justice Department and the attorney general Merrick Garland went completely silent after a tremendous congressional investigation made the case for proving Trump's guilt as the seditious inciter of an insurrection against the Capitol, that this was going to come to nothing.

And look, I get it. Trump was the insurrectionist, inciting violence for the purpose of overturning the results of an election he clearly could not prove was "stolen" from him. The Republicans are the ones who have basically pooped their brains out and turned into walking zombie yes men, lacking the will or the patriotism to serve their country as anything but a shill for a con artist.

But when Democrats had the chance to stop this from happening, they chose to give the old status quo, politics-as-usual, give-and-take, compromise and dealmaking that the GOP abandoned during the Reagan Administration one more try. That was the safe route. We got the rhetoric, "Trump is an existential threat to democracy." But nothing was done about bringing him to justice. Excuses were made about Republican justice appointees and the delays he made in his trials that stretched cases out for years, a travesty in a system where the rule of law is supposed to be the way things are governed.

[stopdiggin]

1. I reserve the right to having a difference of opinion. Thank you.

And my major difference here is the tired saw that the Ds "did nothing" during the course of, and in the wake of, the first term. It simply isn't true. And I kind of wish people would stop repeating it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[lees1975]

2. It's not that they "did nothing."

They did a lot during his first term, especially during the second half of it, when they had control of the House. And they had some remarkable legislative achievements during Biden's term, especially the first half. But they did not do what they effectively could have done to stop Trump during those first two years when they controlled both houses. Big difference. If they'd done what they could have, we would not be here now.

[stopdiggin]

3. I'll quote ..

We got the rhetoric, "Trump is an existential threat to democracy." But nothing was done about bringing him to justice. Excuses were made about Republican justice appointees and the delays he made in his trials that stretched cases out for years, a travesty in a system where the rule of law is supposed to be the way things are governed.

a) once again, selling "nothing was done"
b) Democrats (nor Congress) are not in 'control' of our judicial, so that's more or less off the table
c) Democrats did impeach, which is considered more or less the height and reach of legislative checks. Also undertook other measures dealing with investigations, hearings and reports. Again, what is generally considered to be within the purview of a legislative body.
d) it remains just slightly disingenuous to argue that the 'rule of law' (big term there) is being subverted - when the courts are not delivering results we wish for. (which 'law' would that be?, and how do the Ds unilaterally 'effect' it?)
e) likewise the assumption that more vigorous prosecution would have resulted in either 1) a conviction (questionable), or 2) a prevention of a second run and term (obviously not)

and continuing) a decent argument can be made that the full contempt for democratic norms (and total Republican capitulation) was not fully appreciated in the first couple years of 45 ...

So, yeah ... There's a fair latitude for differences here that all of us don't necessarily agree on, or at least think are worth some discussion.

[lees1975]

4. Ah, yes, like that's "selling" something.

We did impeach, and we did conduct an investigation. We turned it over to a moribund Justice department and attorney general and whined when it got delayed. There is presidential power there that could have expidited a trial.

Beyond that, knowing the kind of threat this was, we could have broken the filibuster, and then, with a house and senate majority in place and a Democratic president, packed the Supreme Court. At that point, you gain the ability to either prevent or overturn their ridiculous immunity ruling, to push the trial into a court and expitite it or try it in the SCOTUS at that point. If we look at what is now happening with Trump, would it not have been worth doing that much? It was brought up, and Biden nixed it.

And here we are, complaining about critics.

[stopdiggin]

6. all some considerable distance from "did nothing" (IMO)

A narrative that I consider at best a half-truth. And one that we continue to trumpet as if it were gospel.

And then wonder why the tepid 'support' .. ?

[lees1975]

7. Is Trump President? Did Democrats control the Congress and the White House in 2020 and for two years afterward? Yes?

Nothing was done that led to separating Trump from the ability to run for public office, or prevent the man, who committed multiple crimes, including rape, fraud, theft of classified documents and sedition. How did that happen, under a Democratic party administration committed to the rule of law?

A half truth? Can't be that, since Trump is President.

There were Democrats who openly said it, once it became clear we had won the 2020 election including control of Congress. Amending the Judiciary Act of 1789 once more, this time to add additional seats to the Supreme Court that Biden could appoint, to neutralize the gang of six corrupt judges, was the most plausible and effective means available to Democrats to make sure Trump was convicted of inciting insurrection and rendered unable to run for public office, likely landing him in prison. That would have required also eliminating the Senate filibuster, since the GOP would have used that to block the vote. Yes, there was risk involved, but what was more important, saving the Constitution and the democracy, or preserving useless Senate traditions and avoiding the vague, nebulous accusation of "political motivation"?

Garland's appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith turned out to be a gigantic waste, without court support to back it up. Less than nothing, in fact.

A packed court would have guaranteed the insurrection trial would be expedited, there would have been no ridiculous immunity ruling, Roe could have been saved, Citizens United could have been overturned. Trump would be ineligible to run for office, and likely in prison. The NBC news carried the story, "Democrats to Introduce Bill to Expand Supreme Court from Nine to Thirteen Justices" Biden said he "wasn't a fan" of the idea, and Pelosi wouldn't bring it up for a vote.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

[Skittles]

5. whatever they "did"

IT WASN'T ENOUGH

or I should say, it wasn't EFFECTIVE

for example, I thought prosecuting Trump over his dealings with that grifter Stormy Daniels was silly and reinforced support from even the non-MAGAt conservatives